Do Muslims believe in creationism or evolution?

Medina

Hi all,
I do not believe in evolution.
The simple reason I don't believe in evolution is that if you go back to the beginning of the world with this theory (and I don't know the ins and outs of the theory) then basically what you are saying is after the big bang, the components in the earth somehow started to form living creatures (probably by some chemical process) which eventually evolved into various species which also evolved to all there is today , humans included.

While I don't have a problem as such with the big bang itself (as I believe that God made that happen to form the earth) what I don't believe is that life came about by itself. I have never heard of any other explosion where eventually a creature came out of it. For example , at any bomb site in the world today, the same atmospheric/chemical conditions exist which we can live in, yet no new species independently forms from the remains of that explosion. Nothing ordered at all forms independently even if it were not living. That is proof enough for me that everything is as someone said 'intelligent design' of a Creator.

ex nihilo nihil fit, "nothing comes from nothing." - Latin proverb

Bottle_of_Smoke

Medina wrote: »

Hi all,
I do not believe in evolution.
The simple reason I don't believe in evolution is that if you go back to the beginning of the world with this theory (and I don't know the ins and outs of the theory) then basically what you are saying is after the big bang, the components in the earth somehow started to form living creatures (probably by some chemical process) which eventually evolved into various species which also evolved to all there is today , humans included.

While I don't have a problem as such with the big bang itself (as I believe that God made that happen to form the earth) what I don't believe is that life came about by itself. I have never heard of any other explosion where eventually a creature came out of it. For example , at any bomb site in the world today, the same atmospheric/chemical conditions exist which we can live in, yet no new species independently forms from the remains of that explosion. Nothing ordered at all forms independently even if it were not living. That is proof enough for me that everything is as someone said 'intelligent design' of a Creator.

ex nihilo nihil fit, "nothing comes from nothing." - Latin proverb

There's a difference between the type of expolsion that's created from a car bomb than that of one resulting from the origin of the universe, I mean it's like comparing caps with semtex.

Also doesn't "nothing comes from nothing" suggest God couldn't come from nothing?

Anyway I'd avoid using "I don't believe in evolution" Evolution can be shown with bacteria & anti-biotics. Be better to say "I don't believe life on earth came about due to evolution"

Schuhart

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »

Also doesn't "nothing comes from nothing" suggest God couldn't come from nothing?

I'm incredibly glad someone else pointed this out.

Now get of that, Houdini.

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »

Anyway I'd avoid using "I don't believe in evolution" Evolution can be shown with bacteria & anti-biotics. Be better to say "I don't believe life on earth came about due to evolution"

Just quibbling (well, maybe a little more than a quibble). My layman's understanding is that evolution isn't about how life started on earth. Its about how species develop, once some form of life exists - ie, that life mutates and different environmental conditions will naturally sort out which variations prosper.

There's a youtube video that I'm more fond of that a decent person should that illustrates this in simple terms. (OK. mostly I like it because the background music is the theme from Black Beauty).

Medina

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »

Also doesn't "nothing comes from nothing" suggest God couldn't come from nothing?

I was waiting for someone to say that BottleofSmoke
And you are quite right in a way. God didn't come from nothing as He precedes Everything - including Nothing;)
It does means Something cannot be produced from Nothing. From Nothing you will get Nothing.
But God is not produced from anything, He is not the effect or result of anything, He does not 'come from' anything. Whereas evolution states that we do, as does religion, just with different origins.
He precedes creation since He created All.

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »

There's a difference between the type of expolsion that's created from a car bomb than that of one resulting from the origin of the universe, I mean it's like comparing caps with semtex.

There isn't any difference. Explain to me how out of the disorder after any explosion, order independently forms? Saying its like comparing caps with semtex means absolutely nothing since they are the means of the explosion not the result of it.

Medina

Schuhart wrote: »

My layman's understanding is that evolution isn't about how life started on earth. .

But doesn't everything have to evolved from something according to the theory of evolution? If you stay within the realm of science alone, then after the world was formed, evolution started surely? Which is the start of creation in a scientist's view? Or when did evolution start then?

Schuhart

Medina wrote: »

He precedes creation since He created All.

One way or another, I sort of guessed it would be turtles all the way down.

Medina wrote: »

But doesn't everything have to evolved from something according to the theory of evolution?

As I understand it (and this is just from reading popular science works - not any formal study, and I'm not claiming expertise) the question of how life started is a topic in itself, and not in the scope of evolution. Evolution starts once you get single cell organisms, and takes it from there. How those single celled organisms came to be is just a different matter - and, as I understand it, there is no certain view on that.

Before we go there, and hopefully we won't, I take it you do appreciate there's an ocean of difference between not knowing how something happened and declaring that God must have done it.

The point about evolution that seems to cause the problem for religion is not that it does not attempt to explain the origin of single celled organisms. Its that, given single celled organisms, there's no particular need to depend on divine intervention to produce us. This makes it harder (but not impossible) to maintain that humans have some special place in creation - as we were produced by essentially the same process as every other species.

Specifically, as I understand it, Islam doesn't have a particular problem with evolution being the mechanism through which other animals emerged. But some scholars (from what I can gather) see a problem in interpreting the statement that God created Adam from clay as consistent with humans being the product of evolution. (I don't have the Quran reference for that statement about Adam's creation, but you may be aware of it yourself.)

As I understand it, there are two core things relating to 'why is all this here' that are not really understood yet by science. One is how the Universe is here at all - that Big Bang concept can reasonably explain how things develop from a moment after the start of the universe, including how elements form and so forth. But the initial impetus is not understood. The other thing not yet understood is how life starts. What is reasonably well understood is how life develops and how species emerge.

Medina

Schuhart wrote: »

One way or another, I sort of guessed it would be turtles all the way down.

One way or another, I sort of guessed you would resort to sarcasm instead of rational debate in the end

Schuhart wrote: »

As I understand it (and this is just from reading popular science works - not any formal study, and I'm not claiming expertise) the question of how life started is a topic in itself, and not in the scope of evolution. Evolution starts once you get single cell organisms, and takes it from there. How those single celled organisms came to be is just a different matter - and, as I understand it, there is no certain view on that.

How can it be a different matter? Only relevant definition of evolution:any process of formation or growth; development: (www.dictionary.com) . As far as I see it, if after the big bang some of elements of the periodic table existed here on earth, for a single cell organism to be the eventual product of some of the element then it had to come from a combination of these elements being fused in a certain way.The process of formation - evolution. That would be logical. Yet these elements co-exist today and still science has not shown us how they came to produce a single cell organism. Nor is there any example of it happening in the world. And why should it have stopped since evolution would have to be continuous?

Schuhart wrote: »

Before we go there, and hopefully we won't, I take it you do appreciate there's an ocean of difference between not knowing how something happened and declaring that God must have done it.

And there's a world of arrogance between not knowing how something happened, never being able to prove it and continuing to claim God could not have done it.

Schuhart wrote: »

The point about evolution that seems to cause the problem for religion is not that it does not attempt to explain the origin of single celled organisms. Its that, given single celled organisms, there's no particular need to depend on divine intervention to produce us. This makes it harder (but not impossible) to maintain that humans have some special place in creation - as we were produced by essentially the same process as every other species.

The fact it doesn't explain single cell organisms is a problem for the theory of evolution not for religion The Amoeba as a single celled organism doesn't pose any threat to the belief that divine intervention produced us at all Schuhart.

Schuhart wrote: »

Specifically, as I understand it, Islam doesn't have a particular problem with evolution being the mechanism through which other animals emerged.

Where did you get this idea?
If God built all creatures from the same building blocks (atoms) then why is it so crazy to think that we didn't come about as a process of evolution, with each species in a different stage of evolution, but that we are all created from the same building blocks by God, just in different forms?!!

Schuhart wrote: »

But some scholars (from what I can gather) see a problem in interpreting the statement that God created Adam from clay as consistent with humans being the product of evolution. (I don't have the Quran reference for that statement about Adam's creation, but you may be aware of it yourself.)

In the Quran God also says we are created from water. Clay is a substance made up of elements ,and many of those elements exist in us also. Science has also proved the Quran right in terms of water being part of our substance.

Schuhart wrote: »

As I understand it, there are two core things relating to 'why is all this here' that are not really understood yet by science.

Don't you mean 'how?' as science wouldn't even grant a 'why' since its random and without reason/design according science itself.

Schuhart wrote: »

One is how the Universe is here at all - that Big Bang concept can reasonably explain how things develop from a moment after the start of the universe, including how elements form and so forth. But the initial impetus is not understood. The other thing not yet understood is how life starts. What is reasonably well understood is how life develops and how species emerge.

That initial impetus would have to be some form of evolution. Some process of formation. As I said before, all the same chemical elements and atmospheric conditions that would have first allowed this initial impetus to start would have to be the same or similar to how it is now since life has existed ever since. Yet nothing can be reproduced today by all those scientists. And I believe it can't since order cannot come from disorder. Back to the bomb site.

Bottle_of_Smoke

Schuhart wrote: »

Just quibbling (well, maybe a little more than a quibble). My layman's understanding is that evolution isn't about how life started on earth. Its about how species develop, once some form of life exists - ie, that life mutates and different environmental conditions will naturally sort out which variations prosper.

Yes pretty much. It can't really be denied. (I'm not saying you can't deny humans evolved)

A very simplified example:

Lets say theres black rocks with green moss growing on them. Theres some beetles living on the rocks/moss. Some are very white, some are completely black, some in between. Birds flying above eat them but with the birds eyesight no colour of beetle blends in better against the green coloured moss.

Then the weather changes so drastically so that the moss recedes & the black rock can be seen. Now the birds will have difficulty seeing the black beetles but can spot the white ones easily. This means that black beetles are more likly to survive & have more offspring, meaning the next generation will be more likely to be black.

It could be said the beetles evolved black colour to avoid the birds. This can be misleading as no indivdual beetle actually changed its colour(so look in a biology book rather than a dictionary), just those who happened to have or mutated to have black genes reproduced because they survived to do so.

Medina wrote:

I was waiting for someone to say that BottleofSmoke
And you are quite right in a way. God didn't come from nothing as He precedes Everything - including Nothing
It does means Something cannot be produced from Nothing. From Nothing you will get Nothing.
But God is not produced from anything, He is not the effect or result of anything, He does not 'come from' anything. Whereas evolution states that we do, as does religion, just with different origins.
He precedes creation since He created All.

It's a bit late to try & get my head around that so I'll check it tomorrow;)

There isn't any difference. Explain to me how out of the disorder after any explosion, order independently forms? Saying its like comparing caps with semtex means absolutely nothing since they are the means of the explosion not the result of it.

I actually meant that the results are also completely different.

But doesn't everything have to evolved from something according to the theory of evolution? If you stay within the realm of science alone, then after the world was formed, evolution started surely? Which is the start of creation in a scientist's view? Or when did evolution start then?

No, evolution is just the inherited changes or traits in a species between one generation & the next. It's not a religion & doesn't have to account for how life started. That's why I think you're better off saying "I don't believe life on earth came about due to evolution"

Science has also proved the Quran right in terms of water being part of our substance.

I'd imagine scientists were aware of that before the Quran was written in fairness.

Where did you get this idea?
If God built all creatures from the same building blocks (atoms) then why is it so crazy to think that we didn't come about as a process of evolution, with each species in a different stage of evolution, but that we are all created from the same building blocks by God, just in different forms?!!

There's scientific evidence to suggest they did & there's nothing in the Quran to say it didn't. http://www.islamreligion.com/articles/657/

The fact it doesn't explain single cell organisms is a problem for the theory of evolution not for religion

No it's not. Stop listening to young-earth creationists! To be honest I don't think this matters. I don't really care about how the universe started & I don't think I'm going to find out in my lifetime. I'm very interested in natural selection as I think it accounts for human psychology & emotions very well. Whether we evolved from lower apes or were created.

Schuhart

Medina wrote: »

One way or another, I sort of guessed you would resort to sarcasm instead of rational debate in the end

Would that it were only sarcasm.

Medina wrote: »

How can it be a different matter? Only relevant definition of evolution:any process of formation or growth; development: (www.dictionary.com) .

If we’re talking about evolution in the sense used by Darwinists and contested by creationists, it means what I said. It relates to life producing variation with environment determining by natural selection which variations prosper. It does not encompass the origin of life. Can I suggest that using the word to mean two things will not assist understanding – and runs the risk of us talking about two different things.

This is what evolution means in the context we are discussing. This is what origin of life means. I’ve no problem with you raising the origin of life question (although I frankly haven’t much to say about it). But do call it what it is.

Medina wrote: »

And there's a world of arrogance between not knowing how something happened, never being able to prove it and continuing to claim God could not have done it.

Generally, atheists don’t say that God could not have done it. We just say there’s an equal chance that the universe was blown out of the nose of the Great Green Arkelseizure, or any other arbitrary myth that we want to create.

Medina wrote: »

The fact it doesn't explain single cell organisms is a problem for the theory of evolution not for religion

Well, religion doesn’t really attempt to explain it (see turtles above).

Medina wrote: »

Where did you get this idea?

From reading the opinions of scholars who purport to be learned in the ways of your faith. Here’s one example.

All indicate that according to the Qur'an human beings are intrinsically at a different level in Allah's eyes than other terrestrial life (by their special nature, celestial provenance in paradise, and spirit or soul) whether or not our bodies have certain physiological affinities with them. This is the prerogative of the Maker to create.

As far as other species are concerned, change from one sort of thing to another does not seem to contradict revelation, for Allah says: "O people: Fear your Lord, who created you from one soul [Adam, peace and blessings be upon him] and created from it its mate [his wife, Hawwa’], and spread forth from them many men and women." (An-Nisa': 1)

Medina wrote: »

Don't you mean 'how?' as science wouldn't even grant a 'why' since its random and without reason/design according science itself.

You are probably right that ‘how’ is a better word than ‘why’ in this context.

Medina wrote: »

As I said before, all the same chemical elements and atmospheric conditions that would have first allowed this initial impetus to start would have to be the same or similar to how it is now since life has existed ever since.

This doesn’t really hold. If it did, the Earth would still be populated by dinosaurs and we’d still be rodents. Conditions change enough to mean that certain forms of life thrive and others don’t. Similarly, conditions can change to an extent that life can no longer be supported. It can therefore be envisaged that conditions suitable for the origin of life are not consistent with the conditions we need to go about our business - but, as I said, there is no clear idea of what those conditions are.

nesf

Medina wrote: »

Don't you mean 'how?' as science wouldn't even grant a 'why' since its random and without reason/design according science itself.

Science inherently answers the "how?" question. It isn't really that concerned with the "why?". The problem is people confuse the latter for the former occasionally.

takumi

guy called Harun Yahyah wrote this http://www.harunyahya.com/books/darwinism/atlas_creation_III/atlas_creation_III_01.php

trying to refute darwin's theory . its intresting.

Medina

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »

A very simplified example:

Thank you Bottle of Smoke for the example, I do understand how evolution after creation is supposed to work and your example makes sense to me. However, I think my biggest problem with the theory of evolution is that it doesn't encompass the 'origin of life'. The way I see it , this theory of evolution is incomplete since the 'initial impetus' of creation as Schuhart referred to is not considered to be within the bounds of the theory. And logically to me, it should be, since science would have to take the stand that life itself 'evolved' from something. Yet it just sweeps away this particularly inconvenient problem and calls for it to be a separate theory.

At the end of the day, some people say that believers of a religion (any religion) are not working on the basis of rationality or logic but on faith. Yet according to science, after the big bang the world was formed and some time later a 'single cell organism'. Now -using my (i'm sure you will say 'flawed') logic - to get from the stage of rocks , dust and whatever matter resulted from the big bang to a 'single cell organism' , in my mind those elements would logically have had to have 'evolved' 'fused' 'mutated' (whatever word you want to use) somehow to cause that, if science is to be considered correct. Because, that's all there was according to science - rocks and elements and minerals like the surface of many planets. If divine intervention didn't occur, then single cell organisms should still be able to form (or 'evolve') from rocks and elements and minerals (I use evolve as a verb not the theory) as they did back then. That would be logical. Yet it doesn't happen. That's why I don't believe in it. It doesn't cover the origin of life (thanks Schuhart) because it can't , but to my mind that is where the theory is incomplete.

So it doesn't matter why the results of any explosion are, you will never end up with a single cell organism forming from it.


By the way whats a young earth creationist?

Medina

Medina wrote:

Thank you Bottle of Smoke for the example, I do understand how evolution after creation is supposed to work and your example makes sense to me. However, I think my biggest problem with the theory of evolution is that it doesn't encompass the 'origin of life'. The way I see it , this theory of evolution is incomplete

It's not supposed to encompass the origin of life.
That's like saying a manual on building bicycles is incomplete because it doesnt explain the origins of life.

Medina

bluewolf wrote: »

It's not supposed to encompass the origin of life.
That's like saying a manual on building bicycles is incomplete because it doesnt explain the origins of life.

No its like saying 'how to build a bike' with already existing parts , not telling you how the parts themselves were built.

Medina

Medina wrote: »

No its like saying 'how to build a bike' with already existing parts , not telling you how the parts themselves were built.

Well if you want to assemble a bike, you don't need to know the history of metals from the bronze age and how smelting started, do you? Or where those metal ores came from? Or where the earth came from to have those metals there?

Medina

If you want to know how to build a bike, then you want to know how those parts are made.

Medina

Medina wrote: »

If you want to know how to build a bike, then you want to know how those parts are made.

Not if you just want to assemble it - and you still don't need the history of metal.

Medina

Let's say in this analogy back to the manufacturing phase...and this manufacturing phase is the bit thats missing. You have metal, then you have parts...how??

That to me is part of the theory of how to build a bike. If your theory starts after the parts are made then the theory is incomplete

Bottle_of_Smoke

Medina wrote: »

Thank you Bottle of Smoke for the example, I do understand how evolution after creation is supposed to work and your example makes sense to me. However, I think my biggest problem with the theory of evolution is that it doesn't encompass the 'origin of life'. The way I see it , this theory of evolution is incomplete since the 'initial impetus' of creation as Schuhart referred to is not considered to be within the bounds of the theory. And logically to me, it should be, since science would have to take the stand that life itself 'evolved' from something. Yet it just sweeps away this particularly inconvenient problem and calls for it to be a separate theory.

No its like saying 'how to build a bike' with already existing parts , not telling you how the parts themselves were built.

Let's say in this analogy back to the manufacturing phase...and this manufacturing phase is the bit thats missing. You have metal, then you have parts...how??

That to me is part of the theory of how to build a bike. If your theory starts after the parts are made then the theory is incomplete

What is your point here? Are you saying we should reject the theory because it doesn't explain the origins of life?

If divine intervention didn't occur, then single cell organisms should still be able to form (or 'evolve') from rocks and elements and minerals (I use evolve as a verb not the theory) as they did back then. That would be logical. Yet it doesn't happen. That's why I don't believe in it.

Careful now, i think its being investigated in lab conditions to see if it's possible. If they did manage to create a cell from elements/minerals would you then believe in evolution?

young earth creationists wiki

AngryHippie

Medina wrote: »

I was waiting for someone to say that BottleofSmoke
And you are quite right in a way. God didn't come from nothing as He precedes Everything - including Nothing;)
It does means Something cannot be produced from Nothing. From Nothing you will get Nothing.
But God is not produced from anything, He is not the effect or result of anything, He does not 'come from' anything. Whereas evolution states that we do, as does religion, just with different origins.
He precedes creation since He created All.

Thats an irrational point. While it may convince you, unfortunately it is not relevant to a rational argument or discussion. You can't just say, yeah but God was there first. Grow up.

On the explosives thing, think nuclear, think mutation, its not pretty but its life-forms being changed by explosions. anything other than nuclear is just a glorified fire.


I'm pretty sure there are Muslims out there that have beliefs that aren't in accordance with the Koran. Just the same as I'm a Catholic but think the book of Genesis is just the poor mans Simarillion.

Schuhart

Medina wrote: »

That to me is part of the theory of how to build a bike. If your theory starts after the parts are made then the theory is incomplete

Can I suggest looking at it this way-

If you want to know how to build a bike, the relevant block of knowledge is engineering.

If you want to know how to get metal out of ore to build the bike, the relevant block of knowledge is metallurgy.

If you want to know how the ore got there, the relevant block of knowledge is geology.

Similarly, if you want to know why different species are the way they are, you study evolution; remember Darwins book was called "The Origin of Species" not "The Origin of Life".

If you want to know how life came to be on Earth in the first place, you need to study abiogenesis

If you want to know how the universe formed into the shape we know with galaxies and stars and so forth, then you need to study cosmology.

Now, you may well decide having studied abogenesis and cosmology that they are total bunk. But that doesnt impact particularly on evolution. In the same way, I might have no idea about geology but be a good enough engineer to design a sound bike.

Medina

Schuhart wrote: »

Can I suggest looking at it this way-

If you want to know how to build a bike, the relevant block of knowledge is engineering.

If you want to know how to get metal out of ore to build the bike, the relevant block of knowledge is metallurgy.

If you want to know how the ore got there, the relevant block of knowledge is geology.

Similarly, if you want to know why different species are the way they are, you study evolution; remember Darwins book was called "The Origin of Species" not "The Origin of Life".

If you want to know how life came to be on Earth in the first place, you need to study abiogenesis

If you want to know how the universe formed into the shape we know with galaxies and stars and so forth, then you need to study cosmology.

Now, you may well decide having studied abogenesis and cosmology that they are total bunk. But that doesnt impact particularly on evolution. In the same way, I might have no idea about geology but be a good enough engineer to design a sound bike.

In the end Schuhart, your opinion is valid and so is mine. It could be looked at either way. If this theory of evolution draws a line in the sand after creation , then so be it. In my opinion ,evolution, if true had to take place to create life also, and is not constrained to variances thereafter alone. Nuclear explosions may have changed pre-existing life forms, but not created new ones from the fallout as far as I know.

We will agree to disagree and part in peace.
That applies to you too AngryHippie. I hope we can grow up enough with each other not to have to resort to demeaning remarks.

Peace to you all, and thanks for the interesting debate.

Schuhart

Medina wrote: »

In the end Schuhart, your opinion is valid and so is mine.

Absolutely – after all, maybe it was the Great Green Arkelseizure all along and we’re both barking up the wrong tree.

Medina wrote: »

In my opinion ,evolution, if true had to take place to create life also, and is not constrained to variances thereafter alone.

At the end of the day, learning how to play the trombone would probably be more enlightening than finding out why exactly scientists state with confidence that we share a common ancestor with the Great Apes, or why many religious folk contest that we have that common ancestor.

However, while I know you’re happy to leave it here, I did feel that your phrase ‘variances thereafter’ shows you actually have an intuitive understanding of what evolution is about. All Darwin is really saying is the ‘variances thereafter’ that prosper are the ones that have some feature that’s useful in the environment they find themselves in. This is solely a feature of living things, as they (by definition) reproduce, giving them an opportunity to pass on hereditary qualities.

To the extent that you want to take any notice of this stuff, I’d suggest thinking of Darwin’s theory of evolution simply as Darwin’s theory of ‘variances thereafter’ – he was simply saying why every living thing is not identical to every other living thing.

the_new_mr

Schuhart wrote:

Great Green Arkelseizure

There's no need to push your luck Schuhart.

CaptainNemo

Hobbes wrote: »

IIRC creationism covers where everything came from, which Evolution doesn't.

As for 0c that depends on the pressure the water is under.

Creationism covers everything except where the creator came from. It only replaces one unknown with another.

af_thefragile

I don't believe in evolution though i won't completely discard it either. It has some true scientific parts to it.

Animals evolve all the time and the evolutionary traits among animals (mainly microscopic bacteria and viruses) are pretty common. Traits such as people in hotter climates have darker skin and eyes to protect them from the sun and people in colder climates are fatter to keep them warm can be noticed too.

So that aspect of evolution is sorta true. And i don't have enough knowledge to comment on how one species could convert into a completely different species.

But i'm a med student and i can say that i find it extremely hard to believe how life, especially humans were created out of a chance of trial and error over a period of time. The human body and every aspect of it is extremely complex. If you ever study about how the human body functions, you'ld be amazed to find out how many different extremely complex and precise process are going on right now in your body just for your eyes to be able to read and comprehend what i'm currently typing!

The human body (and for that case any large animal's body) is an extremely complex, precise and balanced piece of physiological and chemical processes. Everything is so precisely balanced that even a small imbalance would make the whole system fail.
I find it extremely impossible on how such a remarkable thing could be made just out of trial, error and luck over time.

Saying the humans evolved from nature is like saying thousands of pieces of cogs and bolts came together during a storm in a mechanic's garage and a Ferrari was built by itself!

nesf

af_thefragile wrote: »

Saying the humans evolved from nature is like saying thousands of pieces of cogs and bolts came together during a storm in a mechanic's garage and a Ferrari was built by itself!

No, it says nothing like that.

af_thefragile

^So what does it say then?

It took a million years of evolution to create us.
Then maybe in a million years, in some mechanic's garage, we should even see a Ferrari being built by itself. Afterall a Ferrari is mostly all made up out of the same material (iron, aluminum, plastic etc) and is far less complicated than the human body.

nesf

af_thefragile wrote: »

^So what does it say then?

It took a million years of evolution to create us.
Then maybe in a million years, in some mechanic's garage, we should even see a Ferrari being built by itself. Afterall a Ferrari is mostly all made up out of the same material (iron, aluminum, plastic etc) and is far less complicated than the human body.

Your image is one of something springing fully complete from nothing rather than the slow gradual granular process that is evolution. Can you see what I mean?

af_thefragile

^Nope, I think building a car over a million years would be rather a slow, gradual and granular process. Okay, lets take the garage's roof off and let it be exposed to the elements. All the necessary material to build the ferrari is available in the garage. Frequent storms and other natural forces moves the parts around eachother so that they "might" get alligned in the right way over the million years.

Can you expect to see a shiney new ferrari in that garage if you walk in there after about a million years??

I presume your most logical answer would be NO! Cuz you need a proper mechanic who knows how to build a proper ferrari to be present in the garage to build the car.
Maybe there was a "mechanic" who built the universe too? After all everything in the universe is more mechanical than random. If you could tend to agree with me.